This writ petition has been preferred by the writ petitioner challenging the validity of the enquiry proceedings initiated and conducted against the petitioner by the Food Corporation of India and the order of dismissal passed on 20.11.88 and appellate order dated 28.12.88 passed by the Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Assam Region and by the Zonal Manager (East), FCI, Calcutta respectively. 2. The writ petitioner was serving as the Assistant Grade I (Depot) under the respondent No. 1 at the time of his dismissal from service with disqualification for future employment. While he was serving at Guwahati, the Regional Manager, respondent No. 3 drew up an inquiry proceeding under Regulation 58 of the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971 (for short the Regulations) whereby petitioner was charged pertaining to a lot of despatches made from Bongaigaon FSD during 1.8.85 to 5.10.85. The article of charges were as follows : "(I) Despatch of 44 trucks of rice from FSD Bongaigaon to FSD Dimapur8 through FCI contractor during 1.8.85 to 5.10.85; (II) Non-issue of convoy note from the despatching end to the receiving end; (III) That the petitioner did not inform the District Manager, Kokrajhar or the Senior Regional Manager, Guwahati about the day to day despatch particulars, in spite of office instructions; (IV) That the petitioner did not obtain any confirmation from the consignee district about receipt of the aforesaid stock nor made any attempt to ascertain actual despatch." 3. The petitioner did not challenge the findings of the Inquiry Officer in respect of charge No. I and III as those were decided in his favour. He has mainly challenged the finding of the Inquiry Report on the ground that the inquiry proceeding was perversed and finding was not based on the materials relevant to the charges and in arriving the decision the Inquiry Officer did not apply his mind at all in deciding the charge No. II and IV. That before commencement of the enquiry the petitioner by letter dated 31.10.88 requested the disciplinary authority as well as the Inquiry Officer to produce one Sri NK Mitra, who was the Assistant Manager (D) at Dimapur at the relevant time and was competent to apprise the Inquiry Officer about the supply and receipt of goods in question. That before commencement of the enquiry the petitioner by letter dated 31.10.88 requested the disciplinary authority as well as the Inquiry Officer to produce one Sri NK Mitra, who was the Assistant Manager (D) at Dimapur at the relevant time and was competent to apprise the Inquiry Officer about the supply and receipt of goods in question. His requisition as material defence witness was refused by the respondent and not examination of the said witness prejudiced the case of the petitioner. Further allegation was that relevant documents relating to the despatch of the goods were not supplied to the petitioner to represent his case and non consideration of those documents vitiated the enquiry proceeding and the finding based on no material documents made the report liable to be quashed. Further allegation was that the petitioner was made a scape goat to cover the irregularity of the higher officer who were to be responsible for the transport, issuance etc of the materials; that no proceeding was initiated against the District Manager, Dimapur who refused receipt of the goods on the ground of lack of store facilities from the concerned contractor at Dimapur, in spite of the direction by telegram dated 3.5.86 by the Senior Regional Manager of Regional Office, Guwahati, nor was asked to explain the alleged incident, that the proceeding was initiated singularly against the petitioner meticulously with ulterior motives, setting free all other higher concerned officials of the Corporation. 4. In the enquiry petitioner was absolved of the charges No. I and III holding that no charge was levelled in the first para of the Article of charges and that charge No. Ill was not proved against the petitioner. However, as regards charge No. II it was held that the Inquiry Officer agreed with the reply of the petitioner that there was no instruction for issue of convoy notes in case of road movement in the material period, but imputation of negligence was found to be established on the ground that there was lapse on the part of the petitioner in not sending telegram to the consignee. Stand of the petitioner was that the allegation of not sending telegram etc was not levelled in the charge sheet nor in the statement of imputation. Stand of the petitioner was that the allegation of not sending telegram etc was not levelled in the charge sheet nor in the statement of imputation. Against this the disciplinary authority reversed the entire finding and replaced the same by his own finding and held the petitioner guilty of all the four charges and directed his dismissal with a disqualification for any further employment. On appeal under Regulation 68 of Staff Regulations, the appellate authority upheld the imputation of gross negligence of the petitioner for which great financial loss has been caused to the Corporation and modifying the order of dismissal directed reduction of rank to the post of Assistant Grade II (Depot). The appellate authority further directed that reduction of rank would be for a period of 3 years from the date of his dismissal fixing his pay scale in conformity with his last pay drawn in the scale of Assistant Grade I, that being restored after 3 years, his seniority would be fixed on juniormost Assistant Grate I basis and his pay in the scale of Assistant Grade I would be fixed in conformity with the last pay drawn in the scale of Assistant Grade II (Depot). 5. The respondents have filed affidavit-in-opposition through the Deputy Manager, FCI, Regional Office, Assam Region. The averments made in the affidavit are denial of all the allegations made against the respondents. It was averred that, though the petitioner was to follow the relevant circulars and instructions in despatching the stocks informing the receiving end as well as the concerned District Manager of the despatching end and the Regional Manager at Guwahati, the petitioner did not follow the required formalities and did not issue the convoy notes and accordingly charges were framed as per provisions of the Regulations, 1971 and that it was the duty and the responsibility of the petitioner to follow strictly the instructions, rules, and regulations while despatching valuable food grains within the meaning of Regulation 31, 32 and 32A of the Regulation and that due to the dereliction/negligence of duties/responsibility 26 trucks load of rice despatched from Bongaigaon to Dimapur did not reach the destination, resulting in heavy loss to the Corporation and, therefore, petitioner cannot claim immunity from such liability for such a huge loss to the Corporation. 6. 6. The established position of law is that in departmental enquiry the finding of the disciplinary authority should not be interfered with by the Court as an appellate Court, but Court can examine the materials on which the accusation is founded, the explanation offered to ascertain whether the conclusion reached is one which could possibly be reached by a reasonable person. 7. As discussed above the petitioner has made an attempt to divulge his duty contending that his duty and responsibility is only confined to the release of the food stock from the depot, for which he used to keep regular entry as the business of the despatch of the articles required under the rules and regulations. His stand was that the existing circular of the Corporation dated 13.4.85 was clear wherein it was stated that convoy notes are required to be sent only in case of rail movement and not transportation by road, that petitioner's duties and responsibilities extended till the despatch of goods from the depot and was not answerable for any subsequent loss or misappropriation, if any, on transit conducted by the Corporation's transport contractors who did not work under the supervision of the petitioner. 8. The report of the Inquiry Officer showed that no charge was levelled in the first para of the Article of charges, and charge No. III was not proved against the petitioner. It is found that charge No. I and III were decided in favour of the petitioner. However, as regards the charge No. II, the Inquiry Officer held that he agreed with the reply of the petitioner that there was no instructions for issue of convoy notes in case of road movement in the material period. But at the same time the Inquiry Officer held that there was a lapse on the part of the petitioner in not sending telegram to the consignee. However, as it appears from the charge sheet the allegation of not sending telegram to the consignee was not levelled in the statement of imputation. 9. On perusal of the impugned order dated 20.11.88 (Annexure G to the writ petition) it appears that while the respondent No. 3 held that the petitioner was guilty of all the four charges did not discuss the materials on record. The Inquiry Report (Annexure D to the writ petition) was made on the basis of the materials on the record. On perusal of the impugned order dated 20.11.88 (Annexure G to the writ petition) it appears that while the respondent No. 3 held that the petitioner was guilty of all the four charges did not discuss the materials on record. The Inquiry Report (Annexure D to the writ petition) was made on the basis of the materials on the record. The disciplinary authority did not give his reason on what basis he reversed the finding of the Inquiry Officer regarding charge No. I and III. Apparently evidence on record was not discussed to hold that the letter dated 6.4.85 by which instructions were given was actually received by the petitioner. The accepted position of law is that the disciplinary authority cannot insist on production of documentary evidence to prove negative point, as receipt of letter dated 6.4.85 was denied by the petitioner, that onus of adducing evidence to show the receipt of the said letter is always on the prosecution and not on the charged official. On perusal of the record, ie, relevant Peon Book, Register showing the despatch of letter which were produced before the Inquiry Officer during enquiry, the Inquiry Officer was of opinion that those did not show the alleged receipt of the said letter by the petitioner or sent to him by the District Manager, Kokrajhar. Finding of Inquiry Officer was that the petitioner duly sent to the District Office the daily stock position, issue, receipt, despatch and closing balance during the relevant period under the hand and seal of the petitioner and the same were duly received by the District Manager, Kokrajhar. Admitted position on record is that, as viewed by the Inquiry Officer that apart from the daily detailed statement, the District Manager was apprised by the petitioner of the despatches made by the depot through telephonic message, the usual practice followed and further evidence on record was that apart from the daily statements the petitioner also sent monthly statements of stock which also covered the despatch in question. On the basis of the evidence on record, the Inquiry Officer came to the conclusion that charge No. Ill was not proved against the petitioner. On the basis of the evidence on record, the Inquiry Officer came to the conclusion that charge No. Ill was not proved against the petitioner. The reversed finding of respondent No. 3, the disciplinary authority, as it appears, was based on some consideration, which had no relevancy or nexus to the allegations made in the charge and which was apparently not based on materials on record and therefore his finding was beyond the report. 10. Reading of charge No. IV showed that there was no imputation of mala fide intention, misappropriation or collusion on the part of the petitioner. As stated above, petitioner's duty and responsibility was extended only to despatch of the goods from the depot and transportation of the goods were conducted by the Corporation's registered contractors. But while reversing the Inquiry Officer's report the respondent No. 3 discussed the same and went to the extent of holding the petitioner responsible and in support of his reviewed finding to this aspect he did not give any reason. 11. The appeal before the appellate authority under Regulations 68 of the Regulations was modified fixing the imputation of gross negligence of duty on the part of the petitioner which resulted in huge loss to the Corporation and accordingly in place of dismissal the disciplinary authority imposed penalty of demotion to lower post as already discussed. 12. The appellate order was mainly based on the finding that the petitioner was guilty of gross negligence of duty and this negligence was imputed for not sending any telegram etc to the consignee by the petitioner as in-charge of despatching goods. Apparently from the Enquiry Report and from the orders of the respondent No.3 as well as the order the appellate authority it appears that the materials on record had not been discussed. The appellate authority has to satisfy himself afresh on the basis of the evidence on record. On the materials on record the appellate authority has to test whether the delinquent officer is conducting himself in a way inconsistent with the faithful discharge of his duties and responsibility undertaken by him either expressly or impliedly. Any misconduct or negligence may arise on account of any act of the servant in course of his employment which injures the interest of the employer. In this case, as it appears, loss of huge amount of the Corporation cannot be entirely imputed to the petitioner only. Any misconduct or negligence may arise on account of any act of the servant in course of his employment which injures the interest of the employer. In this case, as it appears, loss of huge amount of the Corporation cannot be entirely imputed to the petitioner only. But at the same time it cannot be said that petitioner can absolve of his part of responsibility also. Petitioner has alleged that his punishment is not in conformity with his charges. Allegation of negligence has been imputed as the petitioner did not brought to the notice of the District Manager and other officers about the non receipt of the acknowledgement from the consignee. Materials on record showed that the petitioner kept informed the District Office through phone and accordingly on the basis of the telephonic information the District Office had prepared transfer invoices (TOI). But this aspect of the matter was not considered by the appellate authority holding that the norms of basic duty is laid down in the FCI Regulations, that the receiving end had to be informed through telegram, was not complied by the petitioner. Petitioner's stand was that usual practice followed in Corporation was that as a matter of practice telegram are not sent by any FSD in Assam Region; that during the period of 1980 and 1986, ie, during his tenure as Depot in-charge, there was no practice of sending telegrams to the consignee in respect of despatch made; that in a FSD like Bongaigaon about four to five thousand rupees required every month if one was made to send telegram in respect of every despatch giving the particulars thereof for which no fund was allotted; that telegrams were never sent from the FSD as a matter of practice and it was always within the knowledge of the management. This stand of the petitioner was not accepted by the authority. It is also on record that MS No.20 of 1987 in the Court of Assistant District Judge, Jorhat and criminal case being Bongaigaon GRPS Case No.36/87 have been instituted against the contractor Shri MN Roy, appointed by the Corporation. This stand of the petitioner was not accepted by the authority. It is also on record that MS No.20 of 1987 in the Court of Assistant District Judge, Jorhat and criminal case being Bongaigaon GRPS Case No.36/87 have been instituted against the contractor Shri MN Roy, appointed by the Corporation. From the appellate order it transpires that the only allegation was that the petitioner did not inform the District Office through telegram which he required to do under the provision of the Regulation and this was considered as serious negligence of duty on the part of the petitioner which caused huge loss to the Corporation and from my above discussion, I hold that practice of sending information by telegram was not followed by the petitioner in the depot in question at the relevant time. 13. Proper opportunity to the delinquent officer in the enquiry proceeding is the main tenet in a proceeding of domestic/departmental enquiry. The allegation made by the petitioner was that his material defence witness was not allowed to be examined, though his evidence as regards the delivery of the goods at Dimapur could have given actual picture of the non receipt of the goods at Dimapur. This aspect was not considered by the appellate authority while deciding the appeal which, in my view, prejudiced the case of the petitioner. The petitioner in his written statement as well as in his appeal petition has given reasons as to why inference drawn tentatively by the Inquiry Officer as well as the disciplinary authority should not have been considered to be sufficient. In my view, the appellate authority did not apply its mind to its finding which is only the affirmation of the finding of the disciplinary authority and also the same was not based on independent appreciation of the materials on record. Imputation of negligence on the part of the petitioner goes to show that procedures provided in manual has not been strictly observed by the higher responsible officers and procedure and convention of accepting report from the depot incharges has been accepted and worked up. Further the allegation of non providing of fund for expenses to be incurred in telegram messages has not been considered by the appellate authority for which the petitioner was handicapped to comply with the directions given in the manual as well as in official letters. 14. Further the allegation of non providing of fund for expenses to be incurred in telegram messages has not been considered by the appellate authority for which the petitioner was handicapped to comply with the directions given in the manual as well as in official letters. 14. From the above reason, in my view, the petitioner has case for reconsideration by the authority. In the enquiry proceeding material -witness of the defence was not allowed to be examined by which the rules of natural justice has been transgressed. When such infirmities are apparent such punishment cannot stand. In such infirmities the writ Court has to interfere with such findings for justice and equity. In a disciplinary proceeding preponderance of probability of guilt is sufficient, but when the charges imputing the delinquent officer found with infirmity, award of punishment should be reconsidered. The order of punishment must disclose that the punishing authority has applied its mind to the materials on record. In Bhagatram vs. State of Himachal Pradesh 1983 Lab Ind Cases 662) the Apex Court held that in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court does not function as a Court of appeal over the findings of the disciplinary authority, but where the findings of the disciplinary authority are perversed, High Court can always interfere with that and that once the Court quashes the imposition of penalty, it is open to it to give direction to the effect that fresh inquiry should not be held and that in that circumstances the writ Court itself may impose appropriate penalty. Admittedly in this case there was a huge loss caused to public money and it was caused due to the negligence of the officers and employees and the petitioner cannot be held solely responsible for it. In that view of the matter my considered view is that the appellate authority should reconsider the matter and give his finding accordingly. 15. The petition is partly allowed with the direction to reconsider the petitioner's case by the appellate authority. Parties shall bear their own costs.